MUHAMMED KUNJU ABDUL KHADER KUNJU Vs. THANKAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S. No.182 of 1988 of the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam are aggrieved by the decree fixing boundary for the suit property confirmed by the Additional District Court, Fast Track (Ad hoc), Mavelikkara in A.S. No.81 of 2000.

(2.) THE respondent-plaintiff claimed that the plaint A schedule, 16 cents in Sy. No.597/25 belongs to her as per Ext.A1, assignment deed No.53 of 1950. The plaint B schedule, 15 cents in Sy. No.597/15 belongs to the appellants and is situated on the north of the plaint A schedule. The respondent claimed that there is no specific boundary between the plaint A and B schedules and instead, standing crops separate the plaint A and B schedules. The appellants attempted to trespass into the plaint A schedule and hence the suit for fixation of boundary and other reliefs.

(3.) THE learned counsel contends that as per Ext.C1 and C1(a), measurement of the western boundary of the property belonging to the appellants is 26.7 metres and based on that, in Ext.C2 it is reported that the disputed Anjili tree is within the boundary of the plaint A schedule. But in Ext.C4(a), measurement of the western boundary of the property of the appellants is given as 28 metres in which case the disputed Anjili tree must be within the plaint B schedule. It is also contended that the courts below are not correct in acting upon Exts.C4 and C4(a). A further contention advanced is that the disputed portion of the property is in the possession of the appellants and hence a short cut method of fixing boundary and granting injunction is not permissible.